On Wed, Aug 25, 2021 at 08:13:26PM +0200, Florian Obser wrote:
> On 2021-08-25 18:02 +01, Stuart Henderson <s...@spacehopper.org> wrote:
> > Trying to announce a network on a wg(4) interface via ospf6d, just
> > using passive to pick up the prefix, i.e.
> >
> > interface wg0 { passive }
> >
> > It's failing with "/etc/ospf6d.conf:10: unnumbered interface wg0".
> >
> > With -v I get 'interface with index 27 not found' (this is "normal"
> > with ospf6d) and the routable address does show up e.g. "if_newaddr:
> > ifindex 27, addr 2a03:xxxx:xx:xx::xxxx/64" before giving the
> > unnumbered interface error. There is normally no link-local address
> > for wg.
> >
> > If I manually configure a link-local the interface is successfully
> > added.
> >
> > Anyone have an idea what the behaviour should be here? For passive
> > would it make sense to accept an interface without link-local?
> >
>
> RFC 4291 2.1:
> All interfaces are required to have at least one Link-Local unicast
> address.
If you're not using the interface to send or receive OSPF messages this
should not matter. I doubt the RFC authors considered the possibility
of an IPv6-capable interface that doesn't support link-local.
